/connect-gujarat-english/media/media_files/2025/11/23/img_7246-2025-11-23-13-22-14.jpeg)
Follow Us
Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition seeking direction to the Amdavad Municipal Corporation to include the name of petitioner in the eligible beneficiary list for rehabilitation of slum dwellers under Mukhya Mantri Gruh Yojana (MMGY) 2013, as he lives separately with his wife in a house and not with his father.
Merely, the petitioner was minor and now has become major would not make him eligible to be considered as one of the beneficiaries of the scheme.
The clause 4.1 of MMGY 2013, refers to consideration of slum dwellers families that are living in slums on or before December 1, 2010 and therefore once the family of the petitioner who was living on or before December 1, 2010 was considered as beneficiaries under the scheme.
The prayer made to consider petitioner individually cannot be accepted, the court said.
The petitioner's stays separately shown in the representation is also far from the facts. Petitioner on his own referred to House No. 450/G whereas no such house is available, the court noted.
Advocate appearing for AMC submitted that the stay of father of the petitioner in slums on or before December 1, 2010, his case was considered and father of the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the scheme.
According to Aadhar Card, the petitioner was born in 2000 and when the survey was carried out in 2008-09, he was minor and therefore, his case was not considered.
Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that in the BPL card survey, name of the petitioner is referred and similar is the case with ration card.
The photographs justifies separate stay of the petitioner with his wife, and therefore, non-inclusion of name of petitioner, in the list prepared of beneficiaries to be considered under MMG (Gujarat Rural Urban Housing) Yojana, 2013 is erroneous.
The petitioner claimed that he is a resident of the Gulbai Tekra, Navrangpura slum area and, after his marriage, has been residing separately from his father, not in House No. 450 but in House No. 450/G.
Therefore, considering his separate stay with his wife in House No. 450/G, his case ought to have been considered while preparing the list of beneficiaries for allotment of houses under the MMGY-2013.